In Recap of Recent "ODF" Stories
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Inhibit Jun 12, 2006 7:59 AM EDT |
Is it my imagination, or does every detracting article with "ODF" in the title start with a sentence or two on topic then degenerate down to "... and this is why OpenOffice is teh suck" only with more floral language? We need an old-school superhero with a rolled up newspaper of fact to liberally beat anyone about the head with who writes about ODF then quickly switches rails to distract the reader. I'm thinking "The Tick" here. What d'ya all think the motive is... merely creating story where there is none or something a bit more self serving? |
| dcparris Jun 12, 2006 9:15 AM EDT |
He gets paid to write fiction. I'm responding soon enough with a nice blow-by-blow. ;-) |
| ABCC Jun 12, 2006 10:29 AM EDT |
His writing is fairly devious, I'll give him credit for that. It's a style you often come across in newspapers as well. Easy enough to take in when skimming through, and it generally sounds plausible too, which is it's strength. However, if you pay attention or know the subject it's patently wrong. His ODF bilge is slightly better than his other writing, but only because it's a "new" topic and thus he doesn't have as many cliches to fall in to. For example, in his other recent blog post (about global warming) he states: "If you don't hate industry and human development and the free markets that best enable these phenomenon...." "Of course for those who promote concern over climate change as a surrogate for energy rationing and wealth redistribution...." But the last time I checked, Concern for the environment != Communism, although we've all heard that one a million times. One of the most amusing things about such commentators is their complete lack of consistency when talking about government's waste of tax revenues. Subsidising established corporations is generally a sound investment, whereas even a tax credit for companies researching 'green' energy or the like is always the most heinous crime. Nevermind the fact that lots of such startups create new markets, and often get bought up by the incumbent companies and make them more money than ever before. |
| dcparris Jun 12, 2006 4:36 PM EDT |
You have some good points here. I just wish that, for once, Titch would just deal with some factual information in his writing. Then we could have an actual debate. ;-) |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 13, 2006 1:09 AM EDT |
You have to give Titch one thing: It's not as horrible as the previous ODF articles he wrote. You might have had an influence on him dcparris :-) That doesn't mean it's not a FUD piece with with factual errors in it though. I added my thoughts on that to the Heartland page. I'll reproduce it here as well. -- Quote: "it’s not the government’s role to handicap competitors — it’s a gross disservice to the citizens who expect their state executives to make purchases responsibly and fairly" But it is a governments role to ensure that the procurement process is a level playing field for all competitors. Microsoft's Office Open XML is not open. Microsoft has crafted a license around it in such a way that Open XML is not implementable by it's main competitors. If MA would allow Office Open XML as a standard the it would be stacking the deck in favour of Microsoft and against all other office products. It would do exactly what you describe above: "handicap competitors — [which is] a gross disservice to the citizens". I don't know the exact US laws, but on this side of the pond it's illegal to stack the decks in a procurement process. Cf the procurement rules regarding processor speeds (AMD vs Intel) here in Europe. I would be thrilled to see MS Office implement ODF. I really hope they do and I really hope that they enter the MA procurement process with an ODF compliant office suit. I doubt that MS has the sense to do so, scared as they are to loose the Office stranglehold on the market. -- Sander Marechal |
| dcparris Jun 13, 2006 11:44 AM EDT |
Sander:
> You have to give Titch one thing: It's not as horrible as the previous ODF articles he wrote. You might have had an influence on him dcparris :-) That doesn't mean it's not a FUD piece with with factual errors in it though. I added my thoughts on that to the Heartland page. I'll reproduce it here as well. In some ways it's worse. He should, by now have buckled down to some core facts and issues. Unfortunately - as you point out - he still deals with misleading information and avoids the core issues. Considering he's a senior research fellow, you would think he would know how to debate an issue. Which brings us back to your comment - he's simply writing FUD. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!